<quoted text> You must be really sick of yourself.How did the universe came into form? because we know that, it was neither humans, animals nor plants.

Why is "I don't know" not an acceptable answer for the religious? How does inserting "god-did-it" (when "I don't know" would be an honest answer) actually do anything other than stifle further inquiry?

<quoted text> Then tell me how the universe came into form, if you are not STUPID?

I don't know, and neither do you. I'm comfortable letting scientists follow the evidence to where it leads instead of leading the evidence to a preconceived idea like religion does. Claiming "god-did-it" answers nothing and explains even less. If you're comfortable with that level of 'knowledge', why are you even here arguing about it?

<quoted text> The same Blah blah blah blah blah. Tell me if you have one single shred of evidence, how the universe came into form?

1 shred of evidence for how the universe came about would be 2x more than what you have as 'evidence' for your 'god'. The fact that there lots of very good evidence giving clues to how the univers formed just means there is more for you to ignore

<quoted text> You must be really sick of yourself.How did the universe came into form? because we know that, it was neither humans, animals nor plants.

What the heck would humans, animals or plants have to do with how the universe was created? Does that mean that water or rock created the universe, the way freeservant suggests? OK, which Megaman villain are you backing? Bubbleman?

<quoted text> Read the book of Genesis. God created the universe. No one can say it was human, animals and plants handiworks?

using the source of the claim (The Bible) as proof the claim is true is stupid beyond measure. Using that "logic" I can claim you are a murderer because I saw it written on a piece of paper. As proof of your guilt, I offer that piece of paper. Electric chair for you!

<quoted text>Fine you want a logical explaination that you will just shrug off regardless because you refuse to accept any other form of thinking? Fine here it is.Overtime, Stars and Suns die off and explode in supernovas. The particles that made up destroyed planets and stars from the system that was destroyed by the supernovas are spread beyond massive distances which in time will collect. That explains the rings around planets like Uranus, Saturn and Neptune. These loose particals collide with each other. The heat generated from the collision would fuse the particles together forming an even bigger partical which in time creats comets and astroids. Back then, the universe was extremely unstable with supernovas going off every which way. The shear force could of sent planets in a collision course with each other. Other colided because their orbits overlapped each other where eventually, they would collide. This explains how the Earth and the Moon has the same composition with one another: A massive rock hit Earth while it was still molten and the remaining pieces formed what is called our Moon. That explains why Earth, as small as it is, even has a moon.Its called Astronomy. And its more real than Creationism.

Foul!The logical conclusion or answer is that, no one can disprove the existence of God.

<quoted text>Why is "I don't know" not an acceptable answer for the religious? How does inserting "god-did-it" (when "I don't know" would be an honest answer) actually do anything other than stifle further inquiry?

Atheist scientists insert "evolution-did-it" rather than "I don't know". Example: Abiogenesis. The entire theory of evolution is founded on the religion of atheism.

<quoted text>O Geee... A book. Just like the bible. You mean an interpretation of something that might of happened? If the book of Gensis is telling the truth, then there must be a magical land of Nania. What great physical evidence you have there. I mean, even something like fossils couldn't clearly disprove that the world was created in 7 days. Newsflash: It does.

woodtick57 wrote:Then go ahead and disprove the existence of the FSM. it is the fastest growing religion on the planet, it must be real if you cannot disprove he is the ruler of all.Charles Idemi wrote:You can call God, whatever names you can, but nothing can change his identity as the most the high.Charles, you must hold the world record for red herrings.

Hello, KittenKoder!So you're a South Park fan too!Just one correction: it's not leprechauns which steal underwear, it's gnomes.You might have confused that episode with another episode, in which Cartman reports that he saw a leprechaun.Anyway, gnomes and leprechauns must really exist, because we saw it on South Park.Charles Idemi tells us that the Bible must be true becuase it mentions actual places and actual people.Apparently, then, any source which mentions actual places and actual people must be true.South Park mentions actual places and actual peole, so South Park must be true.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.